residual risk assessment of the level 2 ecological risk ... risk assessment of the level 2...

Residual Risk Assessment of the Level 2 Ecological Risk Assessment

Species Results Report for the Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery

November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has undertaken detailed ecological risk assessments (ERAs) for all major Commonwealth managed fisheries as a key part of the move towards ecosystem-based fisheries management. ERAs assess the risks that fishing poses to the ecological sustainability of the marine environment by considering the impact of fishing on all components of the marine environment. The main purpose of ERAs is to prioritise the management, research, data collection and monitoring needs for each fishery.

The ecological risk management (ERM) framework has been developed to ensure that a consistent process is followed across fisheries when responding to the ERA outcomes. This framework ties into current fishery management processes and structures so that it can be easily implemented by fisheries. To support implementation of the ERM framework, AFMA will fully document the risk management for each fishery. This will ensure transparency in the process and allow for easier co-ordination within and between fisheries. Using the results presented in this report, along with the results from any subsequent levels of assessment, appropriate management arrangements will be developed to address the high priority species as part of the ERM framework.

Due to the semi-quantitative nature of the risk assessment, the Level 2 PSA results do not directly account for all management measures, resulting in an over-estimation of the actual risk for some species. To better encompass this, the Level 2 PSA analysis has undergone further refinement by applying a set of residual risk guidelines.

In early 2007, the residual risk guidelines were developed in consultation with CSIRO and stakeholders to assist AFMA managers in refining the Level 2 PSA results. They have been developed to maintain the key features of objectivity and consistency from the ERA process, and to ensure a repeatable and transparent assessment process. These guidelines take into account methodology related matters and the most current management arrangements. To assist managers, a clear set of decision rules are outlined that are to be applied to individual species.

For the Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery (BSCZSF), the results from the Level 2 PSA table are used here to determine the residual risk at this level of assessment. Overall 25 high risk species were assessed of which four remained high risk after applying the residual risk guidelines. The primary reasons why 21 species were reduced from high risk after applying the guidelines was due to additional information being provided in a report from the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute (TAFI) (Abrantes and Semmens, 2008).

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................2 1. OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................4

1.1. Ecological Risk Management Process ......................................................................4 1.2. ERA Project ...............................................................................................................5 1.3. ERA Methodology......................................................................................................5

2. LEVEL 2 ERA RESIDUAL RISK PROCESS .....................................................................9 2.1. Level 2 ERA Residual Risk........................................................................................9 2.2. Level 2 PSA Residual Risk Process ..........................................................................9

3. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................13 3.1. ERA Results ............................................................................................................13 3.2. Level 2 PSA Residual Risk Results .........................................................................14

4. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................34 Glossary ..................................................................................................................................35 Appendix A - Summary of Productivity and Susceptibility Scoring..........................................37 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................38

TABLES Table 1 Summary of Level 2 ERA Residual Risk Guidelines*.................................................11 Table 2 Stakeholder Engagement...........................................................................................11 Table 3 Level 2 PSA Residual Risk Results............................................................................15 Table 4 Summary of Level 2 PSA Residual Risk Results .......................................................33

FIGURES Figure 1 Ecological Risk Management framework ....................................................................4 Figure 2 The different levels of risk assessment and the trend in confidence and cost ............5 Figure 3 Flow diagram of the Level 2 ERA residual risk process ..............................................9

3

1. OVERVIEW

1.1. Ecological Risk Management Process

A key component in the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s (AFMA’s) move towards ecosystem based fisheries management (EBFM) has been the undertaking of ecological risk assessments (ERAs) for all major Commonwealth managed fisheries. By assessing the impacts of fishing on all parts of the marine environment, the ERAs encompass an ecosystem-based assessment approach. The ERAs will help to prioritise research, data collection monitoring needs and management actions for fisheries and provide information to assist the decision making process so that they can be managed both sustainably and efficiently.

To assist with the implementation of EBFM across all fisheries AFMA has established an ecological risk management (ERM) framework (see Figure 1). This framework ensures that a consistent process is followed across fisheries when responding to the ERA outcomes. While this framework focuses on responding to the results of ERAs, it acknowledges that there are other initiatives contributing to the achievement of EBFM. The ERM framework will streamline fishery’s responses to the results of ERAs and incorporate other initiatives such as harvest strategies and bycatch and discard programs.

Due to the semi-quantitative nature of the level 2 ERAs, not all risk scores are an accurate representation of actual risk. The Level 2 PSA residual risk process is used to incorporate the effects of current management measures which impact on the level of risk posed by a fishery to species and adjust risk scores where appropriate. From a detailed methodology review, AFMA found that some ERAs did not include all existing management arrangements at the time of assessment. Furthermore, since the initial ERAs were conducted in 2005, the management of some fisheries has changed and additional data and information may have become available.

Risk Assessment TSG*/MACs/RAGs Ecological Risk Assessment Report Residual Risk Assessment Report Quantitative Risk Assessment Report

DEWHA Reviews/ Assessments

AFMA Annual Reporting

Risk Analysis TSG*/RAGs

Determine Management Strategy AFMA (based on advice from MACs/RAGs) Environment Committee/Board review/approval Ecological Risk Management Strategy Report

Implement Management Strategy AFMA/MACs

Review/Evaluate Environment Committee/Board

Internal Review of management actions

AFMA Management (involved in all steps)

*TSG – Technical Support Group – currently provided by CSIRO

Figure 1 Ecological Risk Management framework

4

1.2. ERA Project

Since 2001, AFMA has been implementing ERAs. AFMA in collaboration with CSIRO developed the ERA methodology which has now been applied to all major Commonwealth managed fisheries. The aim of the ERA project is to assess both the direct and indirect impacts of a fishery’s activity on all aspects of the marine ecosystem.

1.3. ERA Methodology The ERA methodology is an adaptation of a traditional risk assessment to suit commercial fishing operations. The assessment evaluates the impact of fishing activities on all five major components of the marine ecosystem:

• target species (including bait species); • byproduct and bycatch (discarded) species; • threatened, endangered and protected (TEP) species; • habitats; and • ecological communities.

The ERA assessment adopts a hierarchical approach (refer to Figure 2). With every progressive level, the precision increases along with confidence in the risk scores (noting that not all components progress all the way through the assessment hierarchy). Each of these levels is outlined in more detail below.

Risk Assessment Hierarchy

Scoping

Level 1 Assessment Qualitative: Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)

Level 2 Assessment Semi-quantitative: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)

Residual Risk Assessment (of the Level 2 Assessment) Semi-quantitative: Residual Risk Assessment Guidelines

Level 3 Assessment Quantitative: Sustainability Assessment of Fishing Effects (SAFE) or Full

Stock Assessment

Increasing costs and data requirements

Increasin g accuracy and confidence in attributed risk

Figure 2 The different levels of risk assessment and the trend in confidence and cost

5

Scoping At the scoping stage, a profile is developed for each of the fisheries being assessed. This includes gathering the information needed to complete more detailed level one and two assessments. Analysis focuses on the characteristics of the individual fishery, which may be divided into sub-fisheries based on fishing method and/or spatial coverage if this is more appropriate for assessment. At this stage, the general fishery characteristics are documented, and a list of all “units of analysis” (all species, habitat types and communities present in the fishery) is generated. Hazards and objectives for the fishery are also identified (for more detail refer to Hobday et al., 2007). Level 1 – Scale, Intensity, Consequence Analysis Level 1 is a qualitative assessment of scale, intensity, consequence analysis (SICA) that identifies which hazards (activities) lead to a significant impact on any species, habitat or community. This involves an assessment of the risk posed by each identified fishing activity on each of the ecosystem components. At this level, analysis is conducted on whole ecosystem components (target; bycatch and byproduct; TEP species; habitats and communities), not at the individual species level. Level 1 is used as a rapid screening tool, with a “worst case” approach used to ensure only genuine low risk elements (either activities or ecosystem components) are screened out. This analysis uses the most vulnerable sub-component and the most vulnerable unit of analysis within each component (e.g. the most vulnerable species, habitat type or community). Further to this, where judgements about risk are uncertain, the highest level of risk regarded as plausible is used (for more detail refer to Hobday et al., 2007). Level 2 – Productivity Susceptibility Analysis Level 2 PSA is a semi-quantitative analysis of the risk posed by fishing to all individual species, habitats and communities identified in the scoping stage. Level 2 PSA allows all units (species, habitats or communities) within any of the ecological components to be effectively and comprehensively screened for risk. Level 2 PSA assesses the direct impact of fishing and is based on the assumption that risk to an individual unit is based on two characteristics of the unit:

• Susceptibility: where the extent of the impact on an ecological unit is determined by the susceptibility of the unit to the fishing activities; and

• Productivity: which determines the rate at which the unit can recover after potential depletion or damage by fishing activities.

For the Level 2 assessment, each unit within the ecological component is assessed for the risk it faces from the fishery. The Level 2 PSA approach examines a number of attributes of each unit that contribute to or reflect its susceptibility or productivity. A score on a three point scale (low, medium, high) is determined for each unit for both productivity and susceptibility which combined provides a relative measure of risk for each unit. The attributes used to assess productivity and susceptibility is given in Appendix A. The Level 2 PSA risk scoring system is precautionary in that, where there is no information known on a specific productivity or susceptibility attribute for a unit, it is given a default score of ‘high risk’. Level 2 PSA Residual Risk Assessment Further information on the Level 2 PSA residual risk process is detailed later in this document.

6

Level 3 – Quantitative Risk Assessment At the conclusion of the Level 2 PSA assessment, a number of units may have been identified as being at high risk because of the activities of the fishery. At this stage a Level 3 analysis may be warranted. This can take various forms including a quantitative sustainability assessment for fishing effects (SAFE) recently developed by CSIRO to assess multiple species or a fully quantitative assessment of a specific species (similar to a standard stock assessment). Quantitative risk assessments constituting the equivalent of a Level 3 risk analysis currently exist for many species. Before proceeding to a fully quantitative Level 3 assessment, investigation of suitable existing information to further understand the risk scores for high risk units should be identified. This may help to overcome some of the constraints of the Level 2 PSA results (outlined below) prior to proceeding to more costly Level 3 analysis for the remaining high risk units. Constraints of Level 2 PSA Results The methodology used in the Level 2 PSA assessment results in risk scores of high, medium or low to reflect potential rather than actual risk. Quantifying the actual risk for any species requires a Level 3 assessment. Due to the semi-quantitative nature of the Level 2 PSA risk assessment, analysis does not take into account all management measures currently in place in fisheries, which may result in an over-estimate of the actual risk for some species. The management arrangements that are not accounted for in the Level 2 assessment include:

• Limits to fishing effort; • Catch limits (such as Total Allowable Catches - TACs); and • Other controls such as seasonal closures.

Management arrangements that are accounted for in the assessment include:

• Spatial management that limits the range of the fishery (affecting availability); • Gear limits that affect the size of animals that are captured (selectivity); and • Handling practices that may affect the survival of species after capture (post capture

mortality).

As a result, the Level 2 PSA is intentionally designed to generate more false positives for high risk (species assessed have a high risk when they are actually low risk) than false negatives (species assessed to be low vulnerability when they are actually high vulnerability). This is due to the Level 2 PSA methodology adopting a precautionary approach to uncertainty. An example of this is when a species is missing information on its productivity and susceptibility attributes the risk score defaults to a higher risk.

In addition, TEP species are included within the assessment on the basis that they occur in the area of the fishery, whether or not there has been a recorded interaction with the fishery. For this reason there may be a higher proportion of false positives for high risk TEP species, unless there is a robust observer program that can verify that species do not interact with the fishing gear.

When AFMA reviewed the methodology using example fisheries, some additional concerns arose. Since the original Level 2 PSA results were produced there is now an improved understanding of: new or updated catch data available from log books and catch records; advances in scientific knowledge that may have become available; and more resolution on the spatial distribution of species etc. Each of these issues is discussed below.

7

Improved data The ERA process adopts a precautionary approach if there is uncertainty about an attribute the higher risk score is used. At the Level 2 PSA when a species is missing either a productivity or susceptibility attribute the score defaults to a high risk category. Furthermore, species attributes that were originally calculated for the fishery may be out-of-date because additional or more precise information has become available. Additional information Since the time of the original ERA assessment, additional information may now be available as a result of other investigations and research etc. Spatial assumptions The Level 2 PSA utilises a precautionary approach when calculating susceptibility by assuming species distribution is only within the jurisdictional boundary of the fishery. While this is appropriate for species that form discrete populations or stocks, the risk score for species that extend beyond the boundary of the fishery such as pelagic and migratory species is not. Interaction and catch data Some species have a low to negligible level of interaction with the fishing gear. Species with very low biological productivity may however still be scored high or medium risk irrespective of their low susceptibility. Considering that the likelihood of interaction is already low there is little additional management that a fishery can introduce to mitigate the risk. Therefore the level of interaction or capture should be included as part of the Level 2 PSA residual risk process. Management arrangements As stated above, effort and catch limits for target and byproduct species are not taken into account in the ERA even though these arrangements may mitigate risk for some species. The Level 2 PSA residual risk process allows many of these management arrangements to be incorporated into the assessment.

Some management arrangements concerning the mitigation of bycatch have been incorporated into the initial ERA process; however, they may now be out-of-date since the initial ERA assessment. The Level 2 PSA residual risk process incorporates some of these management arrangements into the results to better represent the overall risk for a species.

There may be a beneficial overlap of management arrangements for individual species that were not a specific target of that arrangement if there is a high degree of association between the species. In some instances the initial ERA may not have considered the benefit of management arrangements between associated species.

Although seasonal, spatial and depth closures have been considered in the initial ERA, more recent management measures have not been accounted for. The Level 2 PSA residual risk process will consider some of these arrangements and will bring the assessment up-to-date.

8

2. LEVEL 2 ERA RESIDUAL RISK PROCESS

2.1. Level 2 ERA Residual Risk All major fisheries have been assessed to Level 2 PSA where applicable. Before moving to a Level 3 assessment, the residual risk guidelines have been applied to account for some of the constraints of the Level 2 PSA assessment. The Level 2 PSA residual risk process (Figure 3) incorporates some of the concepts of a Level 3 assessment and is more cost effective than a full Level 3 assessment. Furthermore, the Level 2 PSA residual risk results more accurately represent overall risk within a fishery and will help clarify if further (Level 3) assessment is necessary.

Consideration of many current

fishery management

Level 2 ERA residual risk

assessment of high risk species

Improved understanding of overall risk

Efficient development of ecological

risk management

strategy

Consideration of up-to-date and missing

information, catch and log book data

Fishery ecological

risk assessment

Figure 3 Flow diagram of the Level 2 ERA residual risk process

2.2. Level 2 PSA Residual Risk Process In 2007 AFMA, with input from CSIRO and stakeholders, developed a set of guidelines to assess the residual risk for species identified as having a high potential risk based on the Level 2 analysis. The guidelines have been designed to ensure that a consistent, transparent and repeatable process is adopted across all fisheries. A summary of the guidelines is given in Table 1. Within each category there are clear decision rules that can be applied to a species (if relevant) to calculate Level 2 PSA residual risk. Each of the guidelines was applied on a species-by-species basis to determine the Level 2 PSA residual risk within the fishery.

When determining the Level 2 PSA residual risk, all considerations included in the calculation process must be recorded, along with the guidelines applied with a detailed justification clearly stated. This ensures that a transparent process is maintained. In review of the ERA results, the guidelines have been applied to all high risk species by managers in consultation with MAC members and experts. Broadly the application processes involved the following steps:

• Sorting the ERA result by high risk, then grouping the high risk species by role within the fishery, then by taxonomic group;

9

• Creating a list of all management arrangements not included in the Level 2 PSA results for reference when applying the guidelines;

• Considering each management arrangement to relevant high risk species;

• Collating spatial information from experts, observer and logbook data for all high risk species for reference when applying the guidelines;

• Deciding if and what guideline applies to each of the high risk species by conducting a species-by-species application;

• Making changes to the necessary attributes, productivity and susceptibility scores to calculate the Level 2 PSA residual risk score;

• Recording all workings, guidelines used, how they have been applied and a justification for the Level 2 PSA residual risk score;

• Providing preliminary Level 2 PSA residual risk results to MACs for feedback; and

• Finalising the Level 2 PSA residual risk results for release.

Before the Level 2 PSA residual risk process was applied to all fisheries the guidelines were trialled in three fisheries, the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF), Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF), and the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF). These fisheries were selected for the Level 2 PSA residual risk pilot because they are key fisheries and provide a template for other fisheries. Developments in the application of the Level 2 PSA residual risk process are outlined in Table 2.

10

Table 1 Summary of Level 2 ERA Residual Risk Guidelines*

Guideline Number Summary Guideline 1. Risk rating due to missing/incorrect information.

Considers if susceptibility and/or productivity attribute data for a species is missing or incorrect for the fishery assessment, and is corrected using data from a trusted source or another fishery.

Guideline 2. Additional scientific assessment.

Considers any additional rigorous scientific assessment (i.e. rapid Level 3 risk assessment, population viability analysis) that calculates the species level of risk from fishing, or considers any other scientific published assessments or results.

Guideline 3. At risk due to missing attributes.

When there are three or more missing productivity attributes, considers closely related species within a fishery that have those productivity attributes known.

Guideline 4. At risk with spatial assumptions.

Uses additional information on spatial distribution of species populations to better represent the species distribution overlap with the fishery.

Guideline 5. At risk in regards to level of interaction/capture with a zero or negligible level of susceptibility.

Considers observer or expert information to better calculate susceptibility for those species known to have a low likelihood or no record of interaction or capture with the fishery.

Guideline 6. Effort and catch management arrangements for target and byproduct species.

Considers current management arrangements based on effort and catch limits set using a scientific assessment for key species.

Guideline 7. Management arrangements to mitigate against the level of bycatch.

Considers management arrangements in place that mitigate against bycatch by the use of gear modifications, mitigation devices and catch limits.

Guideline 8. Limits on associated species through other management arrangements.

Considers the implications of management arrangements for a particular species on other associated species.

Guideline 9. Management arrangements relating to seasonal, spatial and depth closures.

Considers management arrangements based on seasonal, spatial and/or depth closures.

* For the complete Residual Risk Guidelines, refer to http://www.afma.gov.au/environment/eco_based/eras/reports.htm Table 2 Stakeholder Engagement

Guideline stage Stakeholder interaction

Date of interaction Stakeholder group Summary of outcome

Draft ERA for the BSCZSF ScallopMAC August 2006

Fisheries manager, environment staff from AFMA, industry, conservation member, state member

The Level 1 and draft Level 2 ERA results were presented and discussed

Draft Level 2 ERA residual risk assessment trial in SESSF

AFMA workshop

12 December 2006

Trial application of draft Level 2 ERA residual risk guidelines

Agreement much further work was needed

Trial Level 2 ERA residual risk assessment using draft ERA results in the ETBF, SESSF and NPF

AFMA workshop 21 May 2007

Fisheries managers in ETBF, SESSF and NPF and AFMA environment section

Draft Level 2 ERA results presented and application of guidelines discussed. Catalyst for major revision of multiple areas in guidelines by AFMA

Final ERA for the BSCZSF ScallopMAC 27 March 2007

Fisheries manager, industry members, scientific member, conservation member, state government representatives

The final Level 2 ERA was presented and the final high risk species were discussed

11

Draft Level 2 residual risk assessment for the BSCZSF

ScallopMAC 18 March 2008


The draft Level 2 residual risk assessment for the BSCZSF was presented and the results were discussed. Additional information to be sought

Additional information for the draft Level 2 ERA residual risk assessment for the BSCZSF

TAFI June – July 2008

Fisheries manager, senior management officer, TAFI

A report was submitted to AFMA from TAFI (Abrantes and Semmens, 2008). Information contained in this report used to complete the Level 2 ERA residual risk assessment

Final Level 2 residual risk assessment for the BSCZSF

ScallopRAG 27 February and 17 December 2009

Fisheries manager, industry members, scientific members, state government representatives

Report submitted for endorsement. Request for sourcing of additional information. Report subsequently endorsed.

Final Level 2 residual risk assessment for the BSCZSF

ScallopMAC 12-13 January 2010


Report endorsed.

12

3. RESULTS

3.1. ERA Results Fishery Description Gear: Dredge Area: Central Bass Strait Depth range: 20-100 m Fleet size: 103 Statutory Fishing Rights Effort: hours or shots unknown (fishery closed at time of assessment) Landings: 1419 t in 2004 Discard rate: Low when scallops fished at high density Main target species: Commercial scallop (Pecten fumatus) Management: Quota system Observer program: No direct program Species Assessed Target species: 1 Byproduct species: 1 Bycatch (discard) species 140 TEP species: 137 Level 1 Results One ecological component was eliminated at Level 1 (TEP species). There was at least one risk score of 3 – moderate – or above for the remaining components; target, bycatch and byproduct species.

A number of hazards (fishing activities) were eliminated at Level 1 (risk scores 1 or 2). Those remaining activities included:

• Fishing (direct and indirect impacts on the identified ecological components)

Significant external hazards included: other fisheries in the region, coastal development, and other extractive activities. Risks rated as major or above (risk scores 4 or 5) were all related to direct or indirect impacts from primary fishing operations. Impacts from fishing on target, bycatch and byproduct species components were assessed in more detail at Level 2. Level 2 Results A total of 142 species were assessed at Level 2 using the PSA analysis. Of these, 26 were assessed to be at high risk, including the single target species and 25 bycatch species. Of the 142 species assessed, expert over rides were used on 85 species. Of the 26 species assessed to be at high risk, 24 species had more than 3 missing attributes. Most of these high risk species were invertebrates lacking attribute data, meaning they are potential false positives. Effort to gather data for these species is suggested. Summary The assessment showed that the ecological impacts of the BSCZSF were confined to the target species. The TEP component was eliminated at Level 1, while the byproduct and bycatch components were eliminated at Level 2.

13

14

3.2. Level 2 PSA Residual Risk Results The Level 2 ERA residual risk assessment summary for BSCZSF is given in Table 3. Overall 25 species were assessed: 1 target and 24 bycatch (discard) species. One species, Bollonaster pectinatus, was identified as having a synonymous scientific name, Astropecten pectinatus (same species, different scientific name). As a general rule of scientific nomenclature the earliest applicable name (i.e. first name to be published) has priority. B pectinatus is the accepted species name and as such the treatment of A. pectinatus as a separate species has been discontinued. A summary of the number of species in each category of risk and the guidelines used for each component are given in Table 4. The most common guideline used was Guideline 1 which reduced risk based on the sourcing of additional productivity information by TAFI (Abrantes and Semmens, 2008). Overall there has been a change from 25 high risk species prior to the Level 2 ERA residual risk assessment to 4 high residual risk species.

Table 3 Level 2 PSA Residual Risk Results

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

Invertebrate Commercial scallop Pecten fumatus TA 1.14 3.00 High

The BSCZSF has implemented a harvest strategy which provides a framework for the sustainable management of the fishery. Scientific surveys conducted annually will inform management decisions in line with this harvest strategy.

6 and 9

Guideline 6: Annual TAC applies to this species determined through the application of the harvest strategy decision rules to survey results. AFMA has confidence that there is a high level of compliance with the catch limit. Overall risk category reduced to medium. Guideline 9: Seasonal closure provides protection during period of highest vulnerability for recruitment. Extensive spatial closures encompass a viable breeding population. These closures substantially restrict the catch of this species. However as the decrease in the proportion of catch can not be quantified in the terms this guideline requires, this guideline has not been applied. Overall risk category reduced to medium.

Medium

Invertebrate Crassatella Eucrassatella kingicola DI 2.71 3.00 High

BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes - maximum size: 0.8 cm (shell length), trophic level: 2. Productivity risk score reduced to 1.86. Overall risk category remains high.

High

Invertebrate Southern blue ringed octopus

Hapalochlaena maculosa DI 1.71 3.00 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 7 attributes - average age at maturity: 4 months, maximum age male: 5 months, maximum

High

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

age female: 1 year, maximum size: 5 cm (mantle length), maximum size at maturity: 4 cm (mantle length), reproductive strategy: brooder, trophic level: 3.5. Productivity and susceptibility risk scores remain unchanged and overall risk category remains high.

Invertebrate Snapping shrimp Alpheus spp. DI 3.00 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 4 attributes - maximum size: 7 cm (total length), fecundity: 200 eggs/event, reproductive strategy: brooder, trophic level: 2.5. Productivity risk score reduced to 1.86. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Low

Invertebrate Pebble crab Bellidilia undecimspinosa DI 2.29 2.33 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes - maximum size: 3.8 cm (carapace width), trophic level: 2.5. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.00 and susceptibility risk score increased to 3.00. Overall risk category remains high.

High

Invertebrate Black and white seastar Luidia australiae DI 2.43 3.00 High


1 and 3

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 3 attributes - maximum size: 20 cm (arm radius), reproductive strategy: broadcast spawner, trophic level: 3. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.00. Guideline 3: This species also has missing information for

High

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

fecundity. There are closely related species from the genus Luidia including L. sarsi and L. ciliaris. The fecundity of these two species (2-200x106 eggs/event) is similar (would be scored the same) and therefore the fecundity attribute risk score is borrowed for this species. Productivity risk score reduced to 1.71. Overall risk category remains high.

Invertebrate Sea whip Primnoella australasiae DI 3.00 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes – maximum size: 70 cm (colony height), trophic level: 2. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.29. Overall risk category reduced to medium.

Medium

Invertebrate Bryozoan Membranipora perfragilis DI 3.00 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes – maximum size: 15 cm (colony diameter), trophic level: 2. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.14. Overall risk category reduced to medium.

Medium

Invertebrate New Holland spindle shell

Fusinus (Fusinus) novaehollandiae DI 2.86 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes – maximum size: 30 cm (shell length), trophic level: 3. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.14. Overall risk category reduced to medium.

Medium

Invertebrate Sea hare Aplysiidae DI 3.00 1.22 High BSCZSF harvest strategy 1 Guideline 1: Literature review Low

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

(undifferentiated) and annual scientific surveys.

undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 4 attributes – maximum age: 1 year, reproductive strategy: egg layer, fecundity: 105 eggs/event, trophic level: 2. Productivity risk score reduced to 1.71. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Invertebrate Dog cockle Glycymeris (Veletuceta) grayana

DI 2.71 1.67 High BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes – maximum size: 5 cm (shell length), trophic level: 2. Productivity risk score reduced to 1.86. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Low

Invertebrate Mud oyster Ostrea (Eostrea) angasi DI 3.00 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 5 attributes – maximum size: 18 cm (shell length), size at maturity: 6.8 cm, reproductive strategy: brooder, fecundity: 3x105 eggs/event, trophic level: 2. Productivity risk score reduced to 1.71. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Low

Invertebrate Sand octopus Octopus berrima DI 2.86 1.67 High BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 7 attributes – maximum size: 10.6 cm (mantle length), size at maturity male: 2.5 cm (mantle length), size at maturity female: 4 cm (mantle length), maximum age: 2 years, reproductive strategy: brooder, fecundity: 50 eggs/event, trophic level: 3.5. Productivity risk score reduced to

Low

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

1.71. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Invertebrate Sponge crab Lamarckdromia globosa DI 2.86 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes – maximum size: 4 cm (carapace width), trophic level: 3. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.14. Overall risk category reduced to medium.

Medium

Invertebrate Sponge crab Dromia wilsoni DI 2.86 1.67 High BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes – maximum size: 7 cm (carapace width), trophic level: 3. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.14. Overall risk category reduced to medium.

Medium

Invertebrate Hairy shore crab

Pilumnus etherridgei DI 2.86 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes – maximum size: 1.7 cm (carapace width), trophic level: 2.25. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.00 and susceptibility risk score reduced to 1.44. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Low

Invertebrate Great spider crab

Leptomithrax gaimardii DI 2.86 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes – maximum size: 16.5 cm (carapace length), trophic level: 2.5. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.00. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Low

Invertebrate Swimming Liocarcinus DI 2.86 1.67 High BSCZSF harvest strategy 1 Guideline 1: Literature review Medium

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

crab corrugatus and annual scientific surveys.

undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes – maximum size: 4 cm (carapace width), trophic level: 3. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.14. Overall risk category reduced to medium.

Invertebrate Red swimmer crab

Nectocarcinus tuberculosus DI 2.86 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 3 attributes – maximum size: 9 cm (carapace width), size at maturity: 2.5 cm (carapace width), trophic level: 2.5. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.00. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Low

Invertebrate Seastar Bollonaster pectinatus DI 2.71 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 2 attributes – maximum size: 5 cm (arm radius), trophic level: 3. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.00. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Low

Invertebrate Ocellate seastar Nectria ocellata DI 3.00 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 3 attributes – maximum size: 13 cm (arm radius), reproductive strategy: broadcast spawner, trophic level: 3. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.00. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Low

Invertebrate Common urchin

Heliocidaris erythrogramma DI 3.00 1.67 High


1 Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 8 attributes – maximum size:

Low

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

10.6 cm (test diameter), size at maturity male: 2.7 cm (test diameter), size at maturity female: 3.2 cm (test diameter), maximum age: 37 years, age at maturity: 4 years, fecundity: 2,000 eggs/event, reproductive strategy: broadcast spawner, trophic level: 2. Productivity risk score reduced to 1.43. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Invertebrate Sea urchin Holopneustes inflatus DI 3.00 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 3 attributes – maximum size: 7 cm (test diameter), reproductive strategy: broadcast spawner, trophic level: 2. Productivity risk score reduced to 1.86. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Low

Invertebrate Sea squirt Herdmania momus DI 3.00 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 5 attributes – maximum size: 20 cm (height), size at maturity: 5 cm (height), fecundity: 10,000 eggs/event, reproductive strategy: brooder, trophic level: 2. Productivity risk score reduced to 1.86. Overall risk category reduced to low.

Low

Invertebrate Colonial ascidian

Polycitor giganteus DI 2.71 1.67 High


1

Guideline 1: Literature review undertaken of missing productive information. Data was identified for 3 attributes – maximum size: 30 cm (colony height), reproductive strategy: brooder, trophic level: 2. Productivity risk score reduced to 2.00. Overall

Low

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

risk category reduced to low.

Chondrichthyan Draughtboard Shark

Cephaloscyllium laticeps DI 2.57 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Chondrichthyan Smooth stingray

Dasyatis brevicaudata DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Chondrichthyan Thornback skate Dipturus lemprieri DI 1.86 2.33 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Chondrichthyan Whitley's (melbourne) skate

Dipturus whitleyi DI 2.43 1.44 MediumBSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Medium

Chondrichthyan Port Jackson shark

Heterodontus portusjacksoni DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Chondrichthyan Common stingaree

Trygonoptera testacea DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Chondrichthyan Fiddler ray Trygonorrhina fasciata DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Doughboy scallop

Mimachlamys asperrima BP 1.57 2.33 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Stone crab Actaea peronii peronii DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Brazier's auger Acuminia brazieri DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Lace coral : bryozoan Adeana cellulosa DI 2.71 1.22 Medium BSCZSF harvest strategy

and annual scientific N/A N/A Medium

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

surveys.

Invertebrate Temnopleurid urchin

Amblypneustes ovum DI 2.14 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Bass triton Argobuccinum bassi DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Umbilicated top shell

Astele (Astele) subcarinatum DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Razor clam Atrina (Atrina) tasmanica DI 2.14 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Nudibranch Ceratosoma brevicaudatum DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Cone shell Conus anemone DI 2.86 1.22 MediumBSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Little basket shell (a cockle)

Corbula stolata DI 2.14 1.67 MediumBSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate 11 armed starfish

Coscinasterias muricata DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Triton Cymatium (Monoplex) parthenopeum

DI 2.86 1.22 MediumBSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Cowrie Cypraea (Notocypraea) comptoni


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Venus shell Dosinia caerulea DI 2.86 1.22 Medium BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific

N/A N/A Medium

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

surveys.

Invertebrate Gunn's screw shell Gazameda gunni DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Dog cockle Glycymeris (Glycymeris) striatularis


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate

Deepwater bug; Wollongong bug

Ibacus alticrenatus DI 2.29 1.67 Medium

BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys. N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Balmain bug Ibacus peronii DI 2.29 1.67 MediumBSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Screw shell Maoricolpus roseus DI 2.86 1.22 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate False jingle shell

Myochama anomoides DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Fan worm Myxicola infundibulum DI 2.43 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Brooch shell Neotrigonia margaritacea DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Decorator crab

Notomithrax ursus DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Pale octopus Octopus pallidus DI 2.29 1.67 MediumBSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Ophiodermatid Ophiarachnella DI 2.29 1.67 Medium BSCZSF harvest strategy N/A N/A Medium

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

ramsayi and annual scientific surveys.

Invertebrate Brittle star Ophiocrossota multispina DI 2.43 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Ophiomyxid Ophiomyxa australis DI 2.43 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Ophionereid Ophionereis schayeri DI 2.14 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Brittlestar Ophioplocus bispinosus DI 2.43 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Ophiotrichid Ophiothrix (Ophiothrix) caespitosa


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Sand crab Ovalipes australiensis DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Hat urchin Peronella peronii DI 2.43 1.67 MediumBSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Echinasterid Plectaster decanus DI 2.43 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Cunjevoi Pyura stolonifera DI 2.14 1.67 MediumBSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Sea pen Sarcoptilus grandis DI 2.43 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Stichopodid Stichopus mollis DI 2.14 1.67 Medium BSCZSF harvest strategy N/A N/A Medium

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

and annual scientific surveys.

Invertebrate Ridged sponge crab

Stimdromia lateralis DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Hermit crab Strigopagurus strigimanus DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate False cockle Venericardia amabilis DI 2.71 1.22 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Friendly hermit crab

Paguristes tuberculatus DI 2.29 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Whelk Penion maximus DI 2.29 1.67 MediumBSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Medium

Invertebrate Maori octopus

Pinnoctopus cordiformis (syn Octopus maorum)

DI 2.29 1.67 Medium

BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys. N/A N/A Medium

Teleost Painted stinkfish

Eocallionymus papilio DI 1.43 2.33 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Teleost Sandfish Gonorynchus greyi DI 2.14 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Teleost Cobbler Gymnapistes marmoratus DI 1.71 2.33 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Teleost Brown-striped leatherjacket

Meuschenia australis DI 1.29 2.33 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

Teleost Ruddy gurnard perch

Neosebastes scorpaenoides DI 2.14 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Teleost Serpent eel Ophisurus serpens DI 2.57 1.22 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Teleost Silverbelly Parequula melbournensis DI 1.43 2.33 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Teleost Short-finned worm eel

Scolecenchelys australis DI 2.14 1.67 Medium


N/A N/A Medium

Chondrichthyan Little numbfish Narcine tasmaniensis DI 2.00 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Chondrichthyan Banded stingaree

Urolophus cruciatus DI 1.86 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Chondrichthyan Sparsely-spotted stingaree

Urolophus paucimaculatus DI 1.71 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Wavy volute Amoria undulata DI 2.29 1.22 Low BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Large whelk Austrosipho maxima DI 2.29 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Barnacle Balanus trigonus DI 2.00 1.02 Low BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Wedding-cake cockle

Bassina (Callanaitis) disjecta

DI 2.14 1.22 Low BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Low

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

Invertebrate Triton Cabestana spengleri DI 2.29 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Triton Charonia lampas rubicunda DI 2.29 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Top shell Clanculus undatus DI 2.29 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Umbilicated cowry

Cypraea (Umbilia) hesitata DI 2.29 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Volute Ericusa sowerbyi DI 2.29 1.22 Low BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Lamp shell Magellania flavacens DI 2.29 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Eastern king prawn

Melicertus plebejus DI 1.14 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Arrow squid Nototodarus gouldi DI 1.43 1.44 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Venus shell Placamen placidum DI 2.29 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Tulip shell Pleuroploca australasia DI 2.29 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Pear helmet Semicassis pyrum DI 2.29 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

Invertebrate Half-grained helmet

Semicassis (Antephalium) semigranosum


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Helmut shell Semicassis (Semicassis) pyrum


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Southern calamari

Sepioteuthis australis DI 1.43 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Venus shell Tawera gallinula DI 2.29 1.22 Low BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Venus shell Tawera lagopus DI 2.29 1.22 Low BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Low

Invertebrate Fan-like dog cockle

Tucetona flabellata DI 2.14 1.22 small


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Bridled leatherjacket

Acanthaluteres spilomelanurus DI 1.00 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Toothbrush leatherjacket

Acanthaluteres vittiger DI 1.00 2.33 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Sea moth Acanthopegasus lancifer/Pegasus lancifer


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Spotted flounder

Ammotretis lituratus DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Shaw's cowfish Aracana aurita DI 2.00 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

Teleost Ornate cowfish Aracana ornata DI 2.00 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Mueller's flounder

Arnoglossus muelleri DI 1.43 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Butterfly perch Caesioperca lepidoptera DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Barber perch Caesioperca rasor DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Silver dory Cyttus australis DI 1.29 1.67 Low BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Low

Teleost Globe fish Diodon nicthemerus DI 1.57 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Castlenau’s wrasse

Dotalabrus aurantiacus DI 1.29 1.44 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Broad sandfish

Enigmapercis reducta DI 1.43 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Velvet leatherjacket

Eubalichthys gunnii DI 1.00 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Mosaic leatherjacket

Eubalichthys mosaicus DI 1.14 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Common stinkfish

Foetorepus calauropomus DI 1.43 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

Teleost Ocean perch - inshore

Helicolenus percoides DI 1.86 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Half-banded sea perch

Hypoplectrodes maccullochi DI 1.29 1.44 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Common stargazer

Kathetostoma laeve DI 2.00 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Grooved gurnard

Lepidotrigla modesta DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Spiny gurnard Lepidotrigla papilio DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Butterfly gurnard

Lepidotrigla vanessa DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Crested flounder

Lophonectes gallus DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Velvet leatherjacket

Meuschenia scaber DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Jackass Morwong

Nemadactylus macropterus DI 1.43 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Flathead Neoplatycephalus richardsoni DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Rosy wrasse Pseudolabrus mortonii DI 1.29 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Taxonomic

Group

Com

mon N

ame

Scientific Nam

e

Role in Fishery

Productivity

Susceptibility

Level 2 ERA

R

isk Category

Score

Current and Planned

Managem

ent/As

sessment for

the BSC

ZSF

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Guideline(s) A

pplied

Justification

Level 2 ERA

R

esidual Risk

Score

Teleost Bearded rock cod

Pseudophycis barbata DI 1.86 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Latchet Pterygotrigla polyommata DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Greenback flounder

Rhombosolea tapirina DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Red Rock Cod Scorpaena papillosa DI 1.43 1.22 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost School whiting Sillago bassensis DI 1.14 1.67 Low BSCZSF harvest strategy and annual scientific surveys.

N/A N/A Low

Teleost Degen's leatherjacket

Thamnaconus degeni DI 1.29 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

Teleost Many-banded sole Zebrias fasciatus DI 1.57 1.67 Low


N/A N/A Low

*Role in Fishery – TA (target), TB (target bait), BP (byproduct), DI (discard/bycatch), TEP (threatened, endangered or protected).

Table 4 Summary of Level 2 PSA Residual Risk Results

Component Changed from high to medium

Changed from high to low High Residual Risk Medium Residual

Risk Low Residual

Risk Target 1 0 0 1 0 Bycatch (discard) 6 14 4 6 14

Total 7 14 4 7 14

33

4. CONCLUSION The purpose in applying the Level 2 PSA residual risk guidelines was to take into account additional information and to ensure that the assessment was refined appropriately. Refinements were considered in either increasing or reducing the risk as appropriate.

Overall the most common guideline used to assess residual risk was Guideline 1 as many of the species assessed as high risk were missing productivity information. A study undertaken by TAFI was able to identify much of the missing information through an extensive literature review (Abrantes and Semmens, 2008). Guideline 3 was also applied where closely related species information was borrowed. Guideline 6 was applied in the case of the target species, Pecten fumatus, as this species is subject to an annual TAC. This catch limit is determined through the application of comprehensive harvest strategy decision rules to the results of fishery surveys. AFMA has confidence that there is a high level of compliance with the catch limit and as such the overall risk category was reduced to medium. Overall the risk profiles for 21 species were reduced through this process with four remaining as high risk.

The residual risk process brings the ERA assessment up-to-date with most of the current management initiatives within the fishery. Using the results presented here, an appropriate management strategy will be developed to address the high priority species as part of the ERM framework.

34

GLOSSARY

Activity Refers to any fishing activity.

Actual risk The real risk posed for a species from fishing activities.

Attribute A general term for a set of properties relating to the productivity or susceptibility of a particular unit of analysis.

Availability Used in Level 2 PSA assessment to calculate the impact on an ecological component due to a fishing activity. Considers overlap of fishing effort with a species distribution.

Bycatch That part of fisher’s catch which is returned to the sea either because it has no commercial value or regulations preclude it from being retained and;

that part of the catch that does not reach the deck of the fishing vessel but is affected by the interaction with the fishing gear.

Byproduct A non-target species captured in a fishery, that has value to the fisher and be retained for sale.

Catch limit The vessel catch limit is a limit on the quantity each individual vessel can land per trip or short period of time.

Component The marine ecosystem is broken down into five components for the risk

assessment: target species (TA); byproduct (BI) and bycatch species (DI); threatened, endangered and protected species (TEP); habitats; and ecological communities.

EBFM Ecosystem-based fisheries management considers the impact that

fishing has on all of the aspects of the broader marine ecosystem, not just the target species.

Effort The total fishing gear in use for a specified period of time.

Encounterability Used in Level 2 PSA assessment to calculate the impact on an ecological component due to a fishing activity. Considers the likelihood that a species will encounter fishing gear that is deployed within the geographic range of that species (based on two attributes: adult habitat and bathymetry).

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Cth) 1999 ERA Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing as developed by

AFMA and CSIRO. ERM Framework Ecological risk management process outlined by AFMA. False negative Species assessed to be low risk when they are actually high risk. False positive Species assessed to have a high risk when they are actually low risk

35

Fishery A related set of fish harvesting activities regulated by an authority (e.g. South-East Trawl Fishery).

Gear The equipment used for fishing, e.g. gillnet, Danish seine, pelagic

longline, midwater trawl, purse seine, trap etc. Level 1 The level of the ERA assessment which includes a qualitative

assessment of scale, intensity, consequence analysis (SICA). Potential risk Possible risk as a result of fishing activities

Post Capture Mortality Used in Level 2 PSA assessment to calculate the impact on an ecological component due to a fishing activity. Considers the condition and subsequent survival of a species that is captured and released (or discarded).

Precautionary The approach whereby, if there is uncertainty about the risk, risk is

assumed to be high, unless there is advice to the contrary. PSA Productivity susceptibility analysis for Level 2 assessment of the

ecological assessment. Productivity This determines the rate at which the unit can recover after potential

depletion or damage by the fishing. Level 2 PSA Residual Risk In the context of this document residual risk means the residual risk

after the Level 2 PSA assessment.

Scoping A general step in an ERA or the first step in the ERAEF involving the identification of the fishery history, management, methods, scope and activities.

Selectivity Used in Level 2 PSA assessment to calculate the impact on an ecological component due to a fishing activity. Considers the potential of the gear to capture or retain species.

SICA Scale, intensity, consequence analysis for the Level 1 assessment.

Spatial management Fisheries management that encompasses spatial arrangements such as depth closures or area closures.

Susceptibility Used in Level 2 PSA assessment to calculate the impact on an ecological component due to a fishing activity. The extent of the impact due to the fishing activity, determined by the affect of the fishing activities on the unit.

Unit The entities for which attributes are scored in the Level 2 analysis. For example, the units of analysis for the Target Species component are individual “species”.

36

APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF PRODUCTIVITY AND SUSCEPTIBILITY SCORING Productivity The productivity of a unit determines the rate at which the unit can recover after potential depletion or damage by fishing. The productivity score is the average of the following attributes:

1. Average age of species at maturity;

2. Average size of species at maturity;

3. Average maximum age of species;

4. Average maximum size of species;

5. Fecundity of species;

6. Reproductive strategy of species; and

7. Trophic level: organisms position in the food chain. Susceptibility Susceptibility is the extent of the impact on an ecological component due to a fishing activity. The susceptibility score is the product of the following attributes:

1. Availability: considers overlap of fishing effort with a species distribution;

2. Encounterability: considers the likelihood that a species will encounter fishing gear that is deployed within the geographic range of that species (based on two attributes: adult habitat and bathymetry);

3. Selectivity: considers the potential of the gear to capture or retain species; and

4. Post Capture Mortality: considers the condition and subsequent survival of a species that is captured and released (or discarded).

Based on the Level 2 results, if a unit is assessed at low risk from fishing, the rationale is documented and it is not assessed at a higher level. For units assessed at medium or high risk, management arrangements to mitigate the risks are to be further investigated and implemented. If there are no planned or agreed management arrangements, the assessment moves to Level 3 (for more detail, refer to Hobday et al., 2007).

37

REFERENCES Abrantes, K., Semmens, J.M., 2008, Bass Strait Scallop Residual Risk Data. Report for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia.

Hobday, A.J., Dowdney, J., Bulman, C., Sporcic, M., Fuller, M., Goodspeed, M., Hutchinson, E., 2007, Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Sub-fishery. Report for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia.

Hobday, A.J., Smith, A, Webb, H., Daley, R., Wayte, S., Bulman, C., Dowdney, J., Williams, A., Sporcic, M., Dambacher, J., Fuller, M., Walker, T., 2007, Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing: Methodology, Report Ro4/1072, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia.

Standards Australia, 2004, Australian/New Zealand Standard: Risk Management, Third Edition, Standards Australia International Ltd, Sydney, and Standards New Zealand, Wellington.

38

residual risk assessment of the level 2 ecological risk ... risk assessment of the level 2...

Documents